To say it's not intelligence is incorrect. It's still (an inferior kind of) intelligence, humans just put certain expectations into the word. An ant has intelligence. An NPC in a game has intelligence. They are just very basic kinds of intelligence, very simple decision making patterns.
abfarid
joined 1 year ago
"You fool, you fell victim to one of the classic blinders!"
— The Grand Nagus.
Just switch to using an isotope.
You can't patent code, and it's automatically copyright protected. Nintendo just needs to prove they wrote the code originally, which should be easy.
Sloth should be Bethesda.
Idk much about him, but I keep reading here and there that he was terrible. How did he manage to write Star Trek episodes if he was those things?
Let's assume you can use that to determine the beginning of an ad, how do you know how much to skip?
I selected all and it's still not enough of a reason!
Bow to Alec! Let Alec consume you!
Radical approach, because I might miss the post with interesting comments, and people often provide alternative links or straight up embed summaries.
How dare you ignore Alec's video? 😤
But they didn't watch kittens suffer. Yuge difference.
Of course there are various versions of NPCs, some stand and do nothing, others are more complex, they often "adapt" to certain conditions. For example, if an NPC is following the player it might "decide" to switch to running if the distance to the player reaches a certain threshold, decide how to navigate around other dynamic/moving NPCs, etc. In this example, the NPC "acquires" knowledge by polling the distance to the player and applies that "knowledge" by using its internal model to make a decision to walk or run.
The term "acquiring knowledge" is pretty much as subjective as "intelligence". In the case of an ant, for example, it can't really learn anything, at best it has a tiny short-term memory in which it keeps certain most recent decisions, but it surely gets things done, like building colonies.
For both cases, it's just a line in the sand.